Minner’s Reason

June 29th, 2008 • Related • Filed Under
By Delaware Dem

The News Journal has updated its online story with Minner’s statement to lawmakers as to her reasons for vetoing the Eminent Domain Bill.

[T]he governor wrote that the bill could restrict the state’s ability to get an easement on private property for beach preservation or other purposes and be more costly to taxpayers.

Attorney Rich Abbott, who is representing the Wilmington landowners in the lawsuit, said Minner’s legal reasoning is wrong, and that the bill “would not prohibit the taking of easements.”

Still nothing from Carney.

There Are 26 Responses So Far. »

  1. Comment by jason330 on 29 June 2008 at 1:03 pm:

    Please.

    If you are going to lie at least take a few minutes make a a plausible lie. From the bill:

    This Bill requires state, county, or municipal governments, or agencies or other condemning entities to use their eminent domain authority solely for “public use” and defines that term.

    Public use!!?

    I don’t think she read the bill. The shadow government just told her to veto it, so she did.

  2. Comment by delawaredem on 29 June 2008 at 1:09 pm:

    Indeed, she thinks that this bill is restricting the former and still existing eminent domain power that existed prior to Kelo decision, which expanded dramatically the power to private uses.

    So that means either that she did not read the bill, or that she does not understand the bill, or that she is just lying.

  3. Comment by Al Mascitti on 29 June 2008 at 1:37 pm:

    Or that she has pathetically inept lawyers.

  4. Comment by Art Downs on 29 June 2008 at 2:39 pm:

    The legislation was an antidote to the excesses that would be perpetrated through Kelo.

    Use of ‘takings’ to benefit the ‘well connected’ under the guise that tax revenues will be enhanced is wrong and the negative response to such injusice should transcend ideology and party lines.

    The Governor knows her friends and this category does not encompass the people.

    Could there be an override? We should note the names of those who do not stand up for the little people and consign them to political oblivion, regardless of party.

  5. Comment by Al Mascitti on 29 June 2008 at 2:49 pm:

    Art: Thurman the Vermin has already announced he won’t allow one to even proceed.

  6. Comment by Shirley on 29 June 2008 at 4:02 pm:

    I am beside myself with outrage at this. Adult content may follow.

    I just got off the phone with Cindy Osbourne. This thing was a setup from the word go. It is all in the timing.

    The Gov must PROCEDURALLY deliver the veto to the legislature. After that, the Leg has 24 hours to override. So, when will the veto be PROCEDURALLY delivered? Not in time, I imagine.

    Cindy also told me that it took 5 days to get the passed legislation to the Gov’s desk. Why did it take 5 days? WHY, I ask. It was all planned in advance….timing is everything.

    I am so pissed off I can barely type these words.

    I will send the obligatory e-mails to my Sen and Rep supporting an override, but procedurally I’m not sure it can happen. We have to get it out there before noon tomorrow.

    I’m getting to Dover come hell or high water tomorrow. This is one of the most egregious sleight-of-hands I have ever seen.

    Al M: Where is that statement from Adams?

    My thinking right now (muddled as it is) is that the substitute bill giving DelDot the right to run roughshod over property rights may be fast-tracked. I don’t accept that.

  7. Comment by delawaredem on 29 June 2008 at 4:06 pm:

    Shirley…Al is referring to Dana Garrett’s post last night on Delaware Watch where he said Thurman Adams has a policy not to allow a veto by a Democratic Governor to be overriden. It was not an official statement specific to this bill by Adams.

  8. Comment by Shirley on 29 June 2008 at 4:56 pm:

    Thanks, DelDem….I checked Dana’s post out…a matter of conjecture based on experience, and more than likely true.

    Delaware sucks. Although native born to DE, I think I need to move back to Philly. At least there you KNOW who are criminals are.

    Here, it is just “a smile in your face’:……

  9. Comment by Barefoot Melt on 29 June 2008 at 4:57 pm:

    And still no statement from Jack Markell as well. ;-)

    Oops my mistake.

  10. Comment by delawaredem on 29 June 2008 at 5:00 pm:

    Wrong Barefoot. Markell gave a statement last night to Mike Matthews of Down with Absolutes.

    Here is the statement:

    Press guru Joe Rogalsky reports that Markell would have instantly signed this legislation because “he believes in protecting Delaware homeowners and businessowners.”

    And two weeks ago, Markell said this:

    “The protection of private property from government seizure is one of the fundamental principles that our country was founded on,” Markell said. “Delawareans who have built homes and businesses should not have to live in fear that one day their local government will order them to sell their homes and businesses so the government can turn the land over to a private developer. Delaware will be better off when this bill becomes law.”

    Meanwhile, Carney is on record opposing this bill, and thus he is supporting Minner’s veto.

  11. Comment by Sagacious Steve on 29 June 2008 at 5:30 pm:

    I believe that now that the Governor has vetoed the bill, it is returned to the Chief Clerk of the House of the legislation’s origin.

    I think (but I’m not sure) that it’s a House bill. If so, you can almost bet that the House will consider it early in their legislative session tomorrow.

    At which point, all eyes turn to the Senate where the Passion Play will play out. Bob (Senator from Mars) Venables is one of Thurm’s boys, so it’s at least possible that the Senate will entertain the override.

  12. Comment by delawaredem on 29 June 2008 at 5:32 pm:

    It is a Senate Bill. At least, it was called Senate Bill 245, but I am not sure if that means it originated in the Senate, but it seems likely.

  13. Comment by Mike Matthews on 29 June 2008 at 5:47 pm:

    Yep,

    It being a Senate Bill means it will have little chance of getting out of Adams’ desk drawer. The only hope is for the Senators to petition it out. I believe the eight Republicans would sign a petition, but we’d need to find three Democrats. I’m sure Venables and Peterson would sign, but who would the daring third be?

  14. Comment by kavips on 29 June 2008 at 6:18 pm:

    Dori Conner might waffle going against the machine…. heads up.

  15. Comment by Sagacious Steve on 29 June 2008 at 6:20 pm:

    I think Bunting or McBride would likely sign on. Ennis is another possibility. Coupled with the hospital tax, the possible failure of the budget ‘compromise’, and prospective retirements, it could be both an intriguing and lengthy final night for the General Assembly.

    In fact, the more I think about it, the more I think an override in the Senate is better than a 50-50 proposition.

  16. Comment by Art Downs on 29 June 2008 at 9:04 pm:

    Perhaps the Big Heads are merely thick skulled and might benefit from a few election cycles in the private sector.

    Arrogance can be bipartisan.

  17. Comment by Nancy Willing on 29 June 2008 at 10:29 pm:

    Can’t the GA just call themselves back and do the over-ride?

  18. Comment by Another Mike on 30 June 2008 at 12:03 am:

    Ennis has a chance, if this scenario plays out, to make a mark on his first senate session. Some of these senators could have stood out and helped petition any number of bills out of committee, but not one has escaped those dark desk drawers.

  19. Comment by Tony on 30 June 2008 at 2:29 am:

    Imminent domain needs to be restricted and made to where it is nearly impossible for governments to take private land. The laws should make it where it IS so expensive that they will try everything else and only use it as a last resort, for emergency expansion.

    Here in the Dallas-Fort Worth area a few years ago, a local mall (Northeast Mall, owned by Simon) wanted to expand. Since they would pay more taxes than the neighborhood next door, the city used eminent domain to take their homes.

    It was not only ridiculous that it could be done, but they literally made a man leave his dying wife’s side in the hospital so he could go home and move. They threatened, if he did not vacate in 24 hours or so, to bulldoze his and his wife’s possessions.

    It is abuse like this that requires imminent domain to be restricted to the point of being never implemented.

  20. Pingback by And It Shall Come To Pass In The Last Days……………… « kavips on 30 June 2008 at 5:09 am:

    [...] sure lit Shirley up….  From this comment, to two posts of her own, here and here, she is jumping like a Libertarian in a Kangaroo [...]

  21. Comment by Protack for Governor on 30 June 2008 at 7:26 am:

    http://vimeo.com/1251971

  22. Comment by RSmitty on 30 June 2008 at 8:53 am:

    Oh, look. The anti-blogger is now viral video master!

    How’s that IPoD turmoil going? Have you blasted them yet for the exclusiveness of the nomination? I just figured that’s what the state GOP hears from you every two years.

  23. Comment by Dana on 30 June 2008 at 9:31 am:

    Just to let y’all know, in an e-mail circle in which Art and I both participate, Mr Downs once described Governess Minner as a Democrat elected for her looks, not her brain. :)

  24. Comment by liz allen on 30 June 2008 at 11:28 am:

    protack as usual jumping on every piece of legislation he feels would benefit him. pathetic.

  25. Comment by edisonkitty on 30 June 2008 at 4:18 pm:

    Someone posted over the weekend that the deal was done to curry favor with the city of Wilmington. Maybe true, but I suspect forces further south will benefit, as well. The “alternative” bill came from the House, courtesy of Gerald Hocker. It allowed private entity transfers under somewhat limited circumstances. Supposedly, it did not survive long in the face of the bill just vetoed. Look for it to be resurrected as a “compromise”. The golf courses and resort community developers have long gotten pretty much everything they want via the downstate good old boy network. There remain small pockets of privately-owned land in unicorporated Sussex county. Most of these are the last of the affordable housing close to the eastern resorts. Legislative fiat would make the land much easier to convert than having to actuall buy out enough homeowners.

  26. Pingback by Common Sense Political Thought » Archives » The Rule of Law (part 2) on 8 July 2008 at 1:12 pm:

    [...] government for change — a right specifically protected by the First Amendment. For example, our good friends at the Delaware Liberal have been on the story of the state legislature trying to m… to prohibit injustices such as were allowed by Kelo v City of New [...]